4 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHVery interesting read
Leading reported evidence
Fill with vendor haters
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
It has generally been filled with vendor haters that pick everything apart.
Leading evidence: 'Fill with vendor haters' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Fill with vendor haters' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Pedros is not "filled with vendor haters" but there are perhaps a half dozen nay-sayers who are very quick to post acerbic comments whenever the subject of IMS or Jake comes up.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Pedros is not "filled with vendor haters" but there are perhaps a half dozen nay-sayers who are very quick to post acerbic comments whenever the subject of IMS or Jake comes up.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
4 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261027T005001Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
That board is an offspring of the ppbb of yesterday. It has generally been filled with vendor haters that pick everything apart. The funny thing is other than Pedro no one there has done anything to further the Boxster or 996.
In June not all of the warranty details had been worked out as we were finishing up testing and were focused on functionality more than anything else. Fast forward till today and ALL purchasers have been forwarded a pre- authorization form with a copy of the warranty specifics that have zero fine print associated with them. Each purchaser will agree to these terms and fully understand them prior to us processing their order. We have been and will remain to be very forward about the device and what it can do. It will not prevent a failure unless the human in control of the vehicle stops the car and follows protocol.
All that said, soon after tht thread on his board started Pedro contacted us wanting to be a dealer. When we shared he technology with him, he was astonished with he simplicity and sampling method. He will have his first unit next week.
We may end up with every order being pre- authorized as I want no one to be unclear about the technology before they purchase. I will say that we did decide to offer a 30 day money back guarantee to further ensure that every person that buys a system really wants it. I developed this; my name is behind it 100% and the most important thing to me is not the money that it generates, but rather the engines that it saves.
Pedros is not "filled with vendor haters" but there are perhaps a half dozen nay-sayers who are very quick to post acerbic comments whenever the subject of IMS or Jake comes up. None have any direct experience working with Jake that I know of. Nor have any of them personally felt the economic hit a failure in their car might involve.
There is nothing wrong with questioning a vendor. Understanding is good. At the same time, those who seek to further our likelihood of enjoying our cars are to be applauded.
Mike,
I am about as fond of that group as they are of me. I have never experienced such a group of negative people in my life all gathered in one place. It seems they have a common goal.
At any rate, the IMS Guardian is a product that can be purchased if someone wants it.. Its a new device and because of that some drama will be associated with it; from those who do not understand it. (or just want to stir the pot)
Anyone who has had a "chip detector" warning illuminate on the master caution panel of a Helicopter and had their life saved because of the technology would understand that it works. That happened to me twice in a CH 46E. (people wonder how I had the idea)
That said, the technology is making its way up the the ladder as we speak. I had a very interesting phone call this morning on the topic of who wants these devices next. Saving the M96 is just a single stepping stone for the future of this technology in the automobile industry.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
